FINALLY! A defeat for the NRA

[kj]

wave rider wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=Grace62]
You have to go back to the time when most of us were children or not yet born to find the pro-gun control legislation NRA. The organization with those values is long gone.

Which is exactly what cbelt said. But I don't really see why they would/should. I can't remember the last time planned parenthood supported any restrictions on abortion, but then that wouldn't make much sense either. Kj.
Kj, what made you conflate the NRA and Planned Parenthood?

=wr=
I'm clearly not conflating the two. But if you mean compare them, I think they are both organizations that would never advocate even the slightest restriction of freedom of access. If you can understand why Planned Parenthood would never advocate for any restriction placed on availability of abortion, perhaps you can imagine why the NRA would not advocate for any restriction placed on the availability of guns. I understand both, but think both are short-sighted for choosing to be so inflexible and one-sided. kj.

[Lux Interior]

I hereby crown kj the MacResource king of poorly chosen comparisons.

[Grace62]

kj wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
You have to go back to the time when most of us were children or not yet born to find the pro-gun control legislation NRA. The organization with those values is long gone.

Which is exactly what cbelt said. But I don't really see why they would/should. I can't remember the last time planned parenthood supported any restrictions on abortion, but then that wouldn't make much sense either. Kj.
the reason the NRA "would/should" support common sense safety laws for gun ownership is that it would support their supposed values and mission: responsible gun ownership. The policies they now support politically promote irresponsible gun ownership.

Your Planned Parenthood comparison might make sense if PP went from being a health care provider for women to an organization that lobbied against all provisions for women's health in private insurance and in public health; that would represent an about-face mission shift.
PP has never changed its mission, the NRA has.

[hal]

DCrunch wrote:
[quote=hal]
Sure, it sounds overly simplistic, but is it untrue? Has the NRA every opposed any legislation on gun control?

I wonder... if someone proposed a bill to ban the use of handguns by children under 6 years old, don't you think the NRA would oppose it citing a slippery slope (at the very least)?

seriously...

Seriously? That you would even ask the question says a lot about your views.
Well, DUH...not much gets passed you, does it. I admit it - I have a very low opinion on the NRA...

[cbelt3]

hal wrote:
Sure, it sounds overly simplistic, but is it untrue? Has the NRA every opposed any legislation on gun control?

I wonder... if someone proposed a bill to ban the use of handguns by children under 6 years old, don't you think the NRA would oppose it citing a slippery slope (at the very least)?

seriously...

I do not know. I learned to shoot at age 6. Dad decided that was the starting point. Very controlled, not "Here's a gun, blaze away !". And he started with safety, safety, safety.

But to your point, there is always a slippery slope when the State attempts to replace Parenting with Laws.

[Pops]

I'd need a lot more than fingers to count the number of friends and acquaintances of my age (sixties) who long ago canceled their membership in the NRA.

As did I 20 years ago.

[Gutenberg]

There is a law to ban the use of automobiles by children under age 16 in most states. How is that "replacing Parenting with Laws?" There are laws in most states to prevent children from entering into marriage contracts. How is that "replacing Parenting with Laws?"

[kj]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=Grace62]
You have to go back to the time when most of us were children or not yet born to find the pro-gun control legislation NRA. The organization with those values is long gone.

Which is exactly what cbelt said. But I don't really see why they would/should. I can't remember the last time planned parenthood supported any restrictions on abortion, but then that wouldn't make much sense either. Kj.
the reason the NRA "would/should" support common sense safety laws for gun ownership is that it would support their supposed values and mission: responsible gun ownership. The policies they now support politically promote irresponsible gun ownership.

Your Planned Parenthood comparison might make sense if PP went from being a health care provider for women to an organization that lobbied against all provisions for women's health in private insurance and in public health; that would represent an about-face mission shift.
PP has never changed its mission, the NRA has.
That's good you can find differences between the two organizations, but my point that they both take the "slippery slope" rationale seriously, stands. It's hard for anyone to resist fear of the "slippery slope". But fwiw, neither gives an inch, and both could benefit from doing so. kj.

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
There is a law to ban the use of automobiles by children under age 16 in most states. How is that "replacing Parenting with Laws?" There are laws in most states to prevent children from entering into marriage contracts. How is that "replacing Parenting with Laws?"

What do automobiles have to do with gun laws? :jest: kj.

[Gutenberg]

Wow, you really do not get the purpose of having laws, do you? The reason that the use both guns and automobiles by minors is generally regulated is that both have the potential to cause grievous bodily harm and serious property damage and therefore are generally--in more enlightened societies, at least--their use is limited to adults or near-adults.